Uhh--I'm not sure why desis should be unambiguously "troubled" by fluctuations in Hispanic immigration, be it up or (as here) down--that would need a lot more argument, esp. given that 2) given US racial history it seems inevitable that many Hispanics will be (re)constructed as white (a la Greeks/Italians), thus preserving the white majority ad infinitum (I'm neutral on that that, just describing reality).

So, I think an uncritical acceptance of the categories in this WSJ piece will look real dated real soon.

Lol, I recently did work for the Census Bureau (2010 Census) in a suburb of a major metropolitan city and the census workers were either white or black; racial breakdown would be abt 70% white; 29% black; 1% other. I was the only brown person (I felt so alone, I may have to move to DC for govt work if i want to see brown faces). It should be noted, this suburb does have a large Hispanic and decent-sized Asian/Desi population.

Senator, you gotta something about it.

Where have you gone, Senator our nation turns its lonely eyes to you?

Goodnight. Maybe, we should discuss this @ London Sizzler.

given US racial history it seems inevitable that many Hispanics will be (re)constructed as white (a la Greeks/Italians), thus preserving the white majority ad infinitum (I'm neutral on that that, just describing reality).

yes. latinos also have high outmarriage rates, those born and raised in the USA. half-latinos often don't even necessary look like swarthy whites! and half-asians often pass as white, or at least are socially accepted as such.

i'd also chill on these causality relations when it comes to economy and immigration. it seems that you have probably inverted the causal relationship, though it is complicated (obviously 1950-1965 wasn't a period of depression even though immigration was held low by government fiat).

also, not everyone is cheering for massive expansion of the suburbs and exurbs. there are reasons to be OK with denser living in cities obviously from an environmental impact perspective (is the netherlands so horrible???).

btw, pedantic point but many USA hispanics already consider themselves white. wiki:
In the 2007 American Community Survey 24.4 million, or 51.9% of the then 45,427,437 total Hispanic and Latino Americans self-identified as white, an increase from 47.9% in the 2000 census.[9][10] Hispanics and Latinos who reported "Some other race" (meaning they do not identify with any of the standard racial categories given in the census) are the second largest group, at 41.2%, down from 42.2% in 2000. (The 2006 figures for racial categories chosen by Hispanics in the US Census other than "white" or "some other race" are: "Two or more races" or multiracials, 3.9%; Black, 1.4%; American Indian or Alaska Native, 0.8%; Asian, 0.35%; Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, 0.1%.)[9] Respondents in the "Some other race" category are officially reclassified as white by the Census Bureau in some official estimates of race. This means that more than 90% of all Hispanic and Latino Americans end up being counted as "white" in some statistics of the US Census (which would equal 41 million in 2006)

@A brown guy who does random things.

lol hey, how do you think i feel. im a dark desi who's family is from South America....that means no one ever listens to me. I don't even think I have a percentage to even to even know I'm technically unemployed lol

the article does not address the relatively recent economic growth in india and china. even with the current economic conditions, i'm sure this has a little to do with these trends. i'm not sure how much, but these studies should address it.

also, not everyone is cheering for massive expansion of the suburbs and exurbs. there are reasons to be OK with denser living in cities obviously from an environmental impact perspective (is the netherlands so horrible???).

It still bothers me that there isn't a single decent Indian restaurant or grocer in the DC area that is accessible to people without cars. If we could bring the Desis in from Fairfax and Alexandria we'd have the density to make it viable.

Yes Razib, and also I might point out that Hispanics usually come from very skin-tone conscious societies where whiter is better (Mexico, South America). So reconstructing them as whites will not be difficult in the future as it is a grouping most will readily embrace (most already have if your wiki data is good).

MD

"given US racial history it seems inevitable that many Hispanics will be (re)constructed as white (a la Greeks/Italians), thus preserving the white majority ad infinitum (I'm neutral on that that, just describing reality)."

Not sure what you mean here. I see it pretty much as it is: 3 major racial catagories; black, white, and brown (the hispanic kind.)
There has been a large Hispanic population in California for the entire 20th century, and they have yet to metamorphize into Italians. They remain distinctly what they are.
Hispanics might get "reconstructed" as white, but only if they actually are of more European than Indian ancestry. Traditionally a "quarter breed" (75% white, 25% indian) did get classed as white in the U.S., while that would not have been the case with a person of African descent.
However, most "hispanic" immigrants, especially the illegals, are about as "white" as they or their immediate descendents will ever get. Because their numbers in the US are now so large, they mate, marry, and do pretty much everything social, among themselves. They don't need to find partners outside their race. Something similar is happening to desis. As more are here, more are unlikely to marry non-desis. Whatever trend toward intermarriage with whites there may have been among brown hispanics, it will probably not go farther because they have enough of each other to choose from, and that's usually easier and more comfortable. Their ancestry is on average 50-75% Indian, their race category, "mestizo", meaning mixed, but many, especially from El Salvador and Guatamala, are American Indian entirely or nearly; their culture is Latin American and that is how they identify, even after 3 generations. There is nothing new about hispanics in North America. There's just more of them now.

They will never be categorized as "white" and they would not want to be for any number of reasons. The exceptions might be those hispanics who actually are (more or less) white, such as the Cubans and some of the South Americans.

Italians, Spaniards and Greeks are classed as white because that is what they are for all practical purposes. I've been to these countries, the people are Europeans, full stop. There is less difference among them and other Europeans than there is between them and brown hispanics. They have more in common with other Europeans, racially and culturally, than they have in common with Mexicans and El Salavadorans. Catholic schools in some U.S. cities were segregated until the early 60s, but they had no history of banning Italians. About the only thing in which Italians and Greeks resemble Mexicans more than they resemble other Europeans is the bounteous use of garlic and tomatoes in their cuisine, and come to think of it, tomatoes did come from hispanola. They do share a certain kind of food culture, I guess. And religion. Even the Catholic Irish serving in the American army, absconded to Santa Ana during the 1840 war when they saw the Mexicans carrying a virgin Mary icon. Religion can be more of a unifier than some people give it credit for. Most think of it as a divider nowadays.

So what I see happening is a tri-color country, white, black, and brown, with each color having its own "continuum." Whites in North America were a minority in the 18th century, and much of the 19th. It's not a totally new thing.

Usually I tend to agree with razib, but I live in a very heavily Hispanic area, work with government agency advocates, and these people do NOT consider themselves white, and neither would anyone else. I cannot imagine that 90% of hispanics from Mexico and Central America, identify as "white." This goes entirely against experience and common sense.
This ambiguity is due to the relative newness of Hispanics in areas outside of California and the Southwest, and the fact that the rest of the country was so obsessesed with the black/white relations that anything else is just a side show. A copper colored hispanic with a face straight out of a Mayan carving, being called "white" makes no sense. Do desis want to be called "white" as if they had no racial and cultural history of their own? This "white" identifying is a temporary thing. One reason whites might be encouraging it, is that fewer people will be eligible for affirmative action. But with whites a minority that would go the way of the dodo anyway.